There is another trait I’ve noticed that describes some (not all, not even most, but some) progressives, and that’s a perceived need for “counterbalance.” This seemed to be especially common among young progressives.
For instance, if the conventional orthodoxy is that “America good, Islamic terrorists bad,” some of these progressives would go to great lengths to explain and defend why Islamic terrorists do what they do (“America invaded Iraq, did countless CIA interventions, meddled in their affairs, exploits Middle Eastern oil, comes across as imperialistic, has killed a lot of women and children… One man’s terrorist is another man’s freedom fighter”) - the reason being that they perceived that there was a lack of understanding among Americans as to why terrorists do what terrorists do, and that it was their job, as progressives, to widen people’s scope of viewpoint.
On numerous issues - be it Russia (at least, pre-2016,) China, Stalin, Castro, North Korea, Iran, or whatnot, you could reliably count on these progressives to fall on the “I’m going to contradict the majority” side. This didn’t apply for all minority causes, of course; I’ve never seen these folks defend Hitler, Nazis, the KKK or David Duke. But by and large, they would support the opposite of what the majority supported, perceiving a need to counterbalance.
This urge isn’t necessarily bad, of course - indeed, it’s often important to play devil’s advocate and challenge people’s baked-in thinking and assumptions. In some ways it’s a healthy and necessary approach to take. But with some of these young progressives, though, they were often just doing it because they liked to play devil’s advocate to spite the majority. They were the kind of people who, if you put them in Yankee Stadium, would immediately cheer for the Red Sox, and, conversely, if you put them in Fenway Park, would immediately root for the Yankees.